On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:53:33 -0600, "RogerN"
wrote:

I kind of like the Chrysler plan myself. Let the auto makers reduce
production to the demand level. If the unions can pay their members far
above what the average taxpayer makes, that's fine, but don't ask the
taxpayer to foot the bill.

RogerN
==============
Which sounds good, but does not explain how Ford is able to get
by with no taxpayer loans to this point, but GM and Chrysler
aren't.

All three have about the same vendor base, all three have the
same UAW to deal with, all three operate under the same
legal/regulatory framework (e.g. emissions & safety), and all
three have a similar dealer structures.

As part of what I hope is an intensive/extensive "viability"
assessment in the run up to "April Fools Day 2009," such a
comparison seems to be a basic and necessary requirement.

Indeed, this 100+ day window offers a unique opportunity to
compile a massive "case study" of what went wrong, what went
right, and what made no difference, to guide future governmental
oversight/regulation and corporate governance.

The American people have paid (and will pay) a steep price (far
above the latest 17+ billion), both in their taxes and other
losses, for this knowledge. If it can't be learned what to do,
at least there should be considerable knowledge gained about what
not to do.

As several posters have observed "one definition of insanity is
repeating the same actions and expecting a different outcome."
The American people including the taxpayers, investors, and
employees all deserve better than this.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).